van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R
BMJ Editorial, BMA House, London WC1H 9JR, UK.
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
To examine the effect on peer review of asking reviewers to have their identity revealed to the authors of the paper.
Randomised trial. Consecutive eligible papers were sent to two reviewers who were randomised to have their identity revealed to the authors or to remain anonymous. Editors and authors were blind to the intervention.
The quality of the reviews was independently rated by two editors and the corresponding author using a validated instrument. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the recommendation regarding publication. A questionnaire survey was undertaken of the authors of a cohort of manuscripts submitted for publication to find out their views on open peer review.
Two editors' assessments were obtained for 113 out of 125 manuscripts, and the corresponding author's assessment was obtained for 105. Reviewers randomised to be asked to be identified were 12% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 24%) more likely to decline to review than reviewers randomised to remain anonymous (35% v 23%). There was no significant difference in quality (scored on a scale of 1 to 5) between anonymous reviewers (3.06 (SD 0.72)) and identified reviewers (3.09 (0.68)) (P=0.68, 95% confidence interval for difference - 0.19 to 0.12), and no significant difference in the recommendation regarding publication or time taken to review the paper. The editors' quality score for reviews (3.05 (SD 0.70)) was significantly higher than that of authors (2.90 (0.87)) (P<0.005, 95%confidence interval for difference - 0.26 to - 0.03). Most authors were in favour of open peer review.
Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review.
研究要求审稿人向论文作者披露其身份对同行评审的影响。
随机试验。将连续符合条件的论文发送给两名审稿人，他们被随机分为向作者披露身份或保持匿名。编辑和作者对干预措施不知情。
由两名编辑和通讯作者使用经过验证的工具对评审质量进行独立评分。其他结果包括完成评审所需的时间以及关于发表的建议。对提交发表的一组稿件的作者进行问卷调查，以了解他们对公开同行评审的看法。
125篇稿件中有113篇获得了两名编辑的评估，105篇获得了通讯作者的评估。被随机要求披露身份的审稿人比被随机要求保持匿名的审稿人拒绝评审的可能性高12%（95%置信区间为0.2%至24%）（35%对23%）。匿名审稿人（3.06（标准差0.72））和披露身份的审稿人（3.09（0.68））的质量（评分范围为1至5）没有显著差异（P = 0.68，差异的95%置信区间为 - 0.19至0.12），在关于发表的建议或评审论文所需的时间方面也没有显著差异。编辑对评审的质量评分（3.05（标准差0.70））显著高于作者（2.90（0.87））（P < 0.005，差异的95%置信区间为 - 0.26至 - 0.03）。大多数作者赞成公开同行评审。
要求审稿人同意向作者披露身份对评审质量、关于发表的建议或评审所需时间没有重要影响，但显著增加了审稿人拒绝评审的可能性。
